Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Barney Frank's treachery

One of Barney Frank's mantras is that Glass-Steagall would not have helped to prevent the financial calamity which currently threatens civilization, and this is his supposed reason for opposing its reinstatement. However, this doesn't explain his support for its repeal, and his efforts to prevent it from being reinstated at this time.

An earlier post in this blog does a better job of exposing this slick liar than I realized when I created it. (I finally admit that he's evidently quite intelligent, despite his unimpressive performance on Leno a while back, but his quick wit only makes him more dangerous and difficult to pin down.) One of the more telling quotations in that entry is where Frank states "We want capital to move freely. We give [gave?] the financial institutions everything they have asked for." Knowing the evil intent of these institutions, such an admission is tantamount to admitting treason.

This gives a good sense of what a slick liar Frank is. He really supported the repeal of Glass Steagall, as proven by videos of his speeches at the time, but he didn't support the bill which repealed it, because A) it would pass without his support and B) he knew it would destroy the economy and he didn't want people to be able to simply look up the vote and find that he supported it. However, he couldn't admit either of these reasons for not voting for it, so he used the excuse that the bill didn't contain any benefits for the little people. So, this really gives a sense of how slimy and duplicitous he is.

If Frank is only concerned that Glass-Steagall would not be effective for what its proponents claim, then why doesn't he allow it through his committee? After all, according to him, it would simply have no effect. Other than that, as far as I know, he has raised no objections. Why is he so dead-set against it? Might it be for reasons he can't admit - the same reasons for which he advocated its repeal while simultaneously giving the impression that he didn't - i.e. that he still serves the financial institutions?